Friday, September 28, 2012

Last week it was Romney telling a joke about airplane windows that stupid Leftists took and ran with as if he was making a serious statement. This week? Take a look.

Hey NBC News, are you done embarrassing yourselves yet? Let us all know so we can turn out the lights on your horrible, horrible organization. What is this, the 4th or 5th time you've been caught editing/doctoring video/audio this year?

Remember, this election isn't just about getting rid of Obama before he does further damage to the country; it's about exposing this pretentious Mainstream Media that pontificates to anybody who follows it that it is a neutral, objective, nonbiased source of information. Any bias or slant you THINK you see to their coverage? Ah man, you're just IMAGINING that.

This is the year that BS is finally laid to rest. After relentlessly cheerleading for Obama to the point they'd do hatchet jobs like this on his opponent, when Obama loses anyway it'll finally dawn on these assclowns the only people who believe they aren't the unofficial propaganda arm of the Democratic Party are either crazy or stupid or both.

And yet, CBS News and other MSM polling organizations are claiming their polling is showing them an electorate that is now even MORE Democratic than the one in 2008.

Look how many of these MSM pollsters are claiming to find an electorate more heavily Democratic than 2008's +7 when Dem. voter enthusiasm was over 60%

Instead of being +7 Democratic, these new polls claim an electorate that is +9 Democratic. Wow. This is great news for Democrats, right? Why, voter enthusiasm for Democrats must be through the roof right now! Oh wait a minute. Hold on. Don't start celebrating just yet. Or as Winston Wolf would put it, "Let's not start flicking each other's Bic's just yet." What did I show everybody in that last post I put up before this one? Oh yeah, here it is:

Here's the glaring problem with CBS's poll - and any other poll - that claims the electorate on Nov. 6 is going to be even more heavily Democratic than the +7 that was seen in 2008: Democratic voter enthusiasm had to reach 61% and Republican voter enthusiasm had to drop to 35% to produce a +7 Democratic advantage in the 2008 election. Now the roles are reversed since Nov. 2010. See, in Nov. 2010 there was a mid-term election in which Democrats and Republicans TIED each other at exactly 35% of the vote apiece. That +7 Democratic advantage from 2 years previously was wiped out. Not only that, Republican voter enthusiasm continued to climb while Democratic enthusiasm waned. According to Gallup Republican voter enthusiasm is 51%, right where it was in 2004 when Bush beat Kerry in an election where Democratic enthusiasm due to Bush Derangement Syndrome was at a whopping 68%. Right now Democratic voter enthusiasm is at an 8 year low at just 39%. And yet we're expected to believe according to the latest MSM polls that this 8 year low in Democratic voter enthusiasm is about to produce a historic +9 Democratic electorate that will top 2008. This isn't just absurd. IT'S LAUGHABLY ABSURD. Democratic advantage in elections is going from +7 in 2008 to +0 in 2010 to a whopping +9 in 2012? You don't say? A NINE POINT SWING in just 2 years? Even as all the real polling organizations like Gallup show Democratic voter enthusiasm dropping through the floor? The Mainstream Media - ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, the NYT's, WaPo - they are ALL now propaganda arms for the DNC. They are doing what they have always done - slanting their news coverage and their polls to favor one political party over the other. And all the while they hypocritically pontificate to whoever listens to them that they are NOT doing this, that they are neutral, objective, etc. etc. One good thing to come out of this election will not just be Obama getting his ass kicked by the voters; it's also going to be the MSM being exposed again for what it is, despite all it's high-brow protestations to the contrary: a partisan propaganda machine. They are forced into this absurdity because we are winning. And the great thing is instead of depressing Republican voter turnout like they hope to do, all they'll really end up doing is fooling their own base into thinking there's no sense of urgency here, Obama's got it in the bag, so lots of people who don't usually vote in that Democratic base won't feel particularly compelled to do so. They honestly don't think Obama can lose. Boy, are THEY in for a shock.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Why You Won't See Accurate

Polls From The Mainstream Media

Until Just Before The Election

The last poll is the only one that anybody remembers. When that election is rehashed later in the history books, the last poll a pollster put out there will be the only one that really counts, the only one that'll be truly examined. That last poll is what makes or breaks a pollster's reputation. So it behooves a polling organization to get it's final poll as close to the actual election results as possible. That's why every single election since 1984 that I've watched experiences the same phenomena: In the months leading up to election, during the summer, the Democratic incumbent or challenger will always have a lead, sometimes a really big one. Then, as October arrives and the weeks go by, every single election since 1984 suddenly gets 'tighter'. I can even tell you the exact kind of language you are going to hear starting around the final week of October: "The race is suddenly tightening.....""A sudden tightening of the race....""Recent tightening of the race means...."Why does this always happen? At least, according to the Mainstream media polls, groups such as ABC News/Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters, Associated Press, Pew, etc. The polling groups that AREN'T a part of the mainstream media, but just do polling and nothing else, like Gallup and Rasmussen, why don't they ever show this big divergence in the final week or so? The answer is contained in this chart:

During the Spring and Summer months leading up to the fall, Mainstream media pollsters try to shape the campaign news and drive a narrative with their polls. To accomplish this, they do funky things with the numbers. Note that in the past few weeks in polls taken since the beginning of September, 11 of those pollsters shown above in that chart had a sample in their poll that was +4 Democratic or greater. 6 of them expect an electorate on Nov. 6th that is +7 Democrat or greater. And 3 of them expect Democrats to outvote Republicans by +10 points or more. Now in 2008, Democrats DID outvote Republicans by +7. That was a historic wave election for the Democratic party; you'd have to go back decades to find another election where Democrats outvoted Republicans by anything like that kind of number. Usually the partisan split between Dems and Repubs is pretty damn close, and if it's not tied within the margin of error, it's between a +1 or a +3 advantage to whichever party gets the upper hand. So +7 was pretty damn eye-opening in 2008. Despite the fact that a lot has changed since 2008, many of these MSM pollsters are using a 2008 template for their polls. That is, they are presuming a huge Democratic voter enthusiasm advantage that pushes the Democratic vote to another big advantage over the Republican vote. They are assuming Republicans are going to be outrepresented in the actual electorate that votes on November 6 by at least +4 or more. However, all the signs point to a big REPUBLICAN voter enthusiasm advantage in this election. From CBS New's poll of the swing states of Colorado, Virginia & Wisconsin: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/?pageNum=4&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Only 39 percent of Democrats said they were "more enthusiastic about voting than usual," compared to 45 percent in February. The falloff from past elections is even greater: In the summer of 2008, 61 percent of Democrats reported higher enthusiasm levels, as did 68 percent in the summer of 2004.

Since July that trend hasn't changed. Despite the fact the MSM has been using everything but signal flags to tell the country Obama's got this in the bag because Mitt Romney self-destructed, the polls remain deadlocked:

We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

Overall, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points on the ballot (50 percent to 47 percent) – which before we rounded up, is actually a 2.6 point lead and only up a half-a-percentage point from the 2.1 point lead for Obama in our last Battleground poll in early August. In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent).

None of this is surprising. Yes, Democrats had a huge enthusiasm advantage and turned out greatly over Republicans in 2008. That was because of the Hope & Change fever, which has now mostly evaporated except for the most die-hard true believers. Starting in 2009 the Tea Party surfaced as Obama began compiling an actual record of making executive decisions. One of which was passing a highly unpopular health care bill. The electorate responded to that in the 2010 mid-terms just 2 years ago by delivering a huge slap in the face to Democratic incumbents nationwide. The partisan split in that 2010 mid-term as a dead-even 35% to 35% between Democrats and Republicans. Voter turnout advantage was exactly 0 points. Which meant the Independents swinging rightward is what delivered one of the most humongous ass-kickings in American political history to Democrats.

"Humongous". Great word. I so rarely get to use it.

Right now Romney is winning that Independent vote by a considerable margin. To make up for this, the MSM pollsters are undersampling Indies and Republicans in their polls and blowing up the Democrats in their samples, sometimes to ABSURD sizes, such as the ABC/News, Reuters, and Democracy Corp polls in that chart at the top of the page. +7 was a historic turnout for Democrats, yet some of these pollsters desperate to keep Obama way ahead of Romney are claiming a Democratic electorate of +10 or +11. These MSM pollsters KNOW what the actual numbers are. Which is why they are in full-blown panic mode the past month and a half, trying to convince anyone who will listen to them that Romney's lost already. They are seeking to dampen Republican voting enthusiasm because they know if Republicans turn out, it's over. Their guy, their shining Prince, will lose.

And their own polls are telling them IT'S NOT WORKING. Romney's NOT dropping back, even though they continue to oversample Democrats and basically engage in fantasy polling. Rasmussen is considered 'Hitler's Pollster' by the Far Left because it NEVER engages in the stupidity that MSM pollsters do, of hugely inflating Democrats in their sample to manufacture headlines to try to drive a Lefty narrative. The electorate IS essentially deadlocked right now, just as it was in 2010, so a tie between Romney & Obama is far more accurate than an absurd Pew Poll that presupposes a +9 advantage to Democrats to give Obama an 8 point lead. After the debates start, and it's apparent that Obama is losing them, MSM true believers will pull out all the stops for the first 3 weeks of October. We may see Democrat over sampling approach the +15 pt level, maybe even to Pew's ridiculous early August poll that had a +19. But I guarantee you in that week just before the votes are cast on Nov. 6, they know they have to stop playing these games. They are going to HAVE to quit skewing absurdly to Democrats and put out a poll that actually reflects the real electorate. And when they do that, they'll suddenly start reporting as news: "The race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama for the Presidency suddenly tightened today...."UPDATE: Here's the Washington Post out today with a new poll that has a +9 Democratic sample that claims Obama leads Romney 52-44http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/obama-leads-romney-ohio-post-poll/2012/09/25/4984e7b6-0708-11e2-9eea-333857f6a7bd_page.htmlNiceDeb explains that in 2010 Ohio had a virtually even Party ID split in the voting for the mid-terms: http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/obama-and-romney-neck-in-neck-in-oh-poll-with-d10-sample/As you can see for yourself, Party ID is evenly split in Ohio among those who actually voted in 2010: http://www.cbsnews.com/election2010/exit.shtml?state=OH&jurisdiction=0&race=Shttp://www.gallup.com/poll/152438/States-Move-GOP-2011.aspx#3So where the hell does WaPo get off assuming the electorate in that state is now +9 Democratic? Once again, they are simply engaging in fantasy polling here, hoping to discourage Republicans from voting. "8 point lead for Obama, you wingnutz in Ohio! Just stay home and don't waste your time on Nov. 6!"

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Thanks To All Who

Visited This Week -

Draw & STRIKE! Blog's

Most Successful Week Yet!

When I started this blog back in the middle of March, I figured it'd take me over a year until I built up the traffic to the point it would reach at least 3,000 views a month. Thanks to Twitter, Facebook and other social media I've been able to cross the 6,000 view a month threshold in just 6 months.

This past week has been really good:

It takes awhile to build a regular readership for a small blog like this, so I really appreciate those who are dropping in regularly to read.

Friday, September 21, 2012

State Department officials said security for the consulate was frequently reviewed and was deemed sufficient to counter what U.S. officials considered to be the most likely threat at the time: a limited hit-and-run attack with rocket-propelled grenades or improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

There was a string of attacks in Benghazi in the months before Sept. 11, including a June 6 IED explosion outside the consulate compound. "These types of incidents were the ones that were our principal concerns," a senior State Department official said. Based on the outcome of the June 6 attack, in which a perimeter wall was damaged but no Americans hurt, a second State Department official added: "Our security plan worked."

Later on in the same interview with the reporter, one of the State Dept. geniuses says THIS:

One senior State Department official described the Benghazi consulate as a "temporary office" that security officers treated as a "subsidiary" of the embassy in Tripoli, where more strenuous procedures and precautions were in place. "So Tripoli had the plan and the idea was that these people would just fall back on Tripoli, which they did in this situation, so it worked," the official said. [emphasis added]

'It worked'. You don't say? Take a bow then, guys.

Made a wrong turn on that fallback to Tripoli

Seriously, I'm so freaking mad right now I can't think straight. I'll be back with a rant later.Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ for the linking. Be sure to read Ace's and DrewM's own take on this fiasco over at Ace of Spades HQ: http://minx.cc/?post=333085http://minx.cc/?post=333075

So Progressives have gone from "You didn't build that" to justify sending more $ to Washington so politicians there can spend it to 'help' the private sector create jobs....

To this latest stupidity of "You don't really own that" to justify the gov't taking your property you worked for and giving it somebody else because it's 'fair'.

Later on Twitter I put together a train of thought explaining why Progressives like those in OWS can brazenly state they are entitled to the fruits of other's labor in such a breathtakingly arrogant fashion. It's exactly because of the kind of thinking Matt Yglesias was advancing above:

If Progressives honestly are stupid enough to believe #mythofownership, then that is WHY they feel entitled to other people's money, among other things. Work becomes of no value because owning property becomes of no value, and since all citizens deserve an equal outcome, it's only 'fair' that the Government redistribute the wealth evenly to every one.

How hard you worked - or didn't work - should not have any bearing on your financial status.

I can't think of any other belief that is as anti-ethical to being an American than this.

But these are the same people that will bristle if you say their beliefs aren't compatible with America, or if you call them socialists.

Indeed they have. You want a national discussion of gov't dependency/wealth redistribution vs. individual freedom/personal responsibility?

YOU JUST GOT IT. That distraction/shiny object/LOOK - A SQUIRREL!!! strategy is now officially OVER.

Thanks, Mother Jones!

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Mitt Romney, March 2012, in broad daylight: “If you’re looking for free stuff, vote for the other guy”

By the way, there’s a reason you don’t know that woman’s name, address, tax status, rap sheet, and whatever else the media can find out about her: They agree with her. And they’re offended that Romney doesn’t.

Oh yeah? Well I'M offended that THEY'RE offended.

Get ready folks. Like a lawyer at trial that just asked a question he didn't know the answer to, Mother Jones & Co. just helped focus this election like a laser on Obama's view of the gov't being absolutely central to American life, and how he views dependency on it as not only a good thing, but something he hopes to dramatically increase if re-elected. UPDATE II: After claiming they would go ahead and release the 'full' and 'complete' video of the possibly illegally recorded Romney fundraiser from May, David Corn and Mother Jones now admit there is a big gap in the video. It apparently was a 'Part 1' that cuts off right at the moment Romney is talking about the '47%' that are dependent on the government, then picks up in 'Part 2' with Romney now on a completely different subject: China. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/critical-audio-gap-in-complete-romney-tape-released-by-mother-jones/

[Romney]“We do all these polls — I find it amazing. We poll all these people to see where you stand in the polls but 45 percent of the people vote for the Republicans and 48 or 49–,” This is where the first part of the video cuts out.

Part two picks up seemingly on a completely different subject: China.

“…about twice as much as China, not 10 times as much like is reported. And we have responsibility for the whole world, they’re only focused on one little area of the world, the south china sea…”

Something is missing. Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video.

So the “complete” audio/video has not been released by Corn, or Corn never had it to begin with.

I found Corn’s email address, and he responded as follows:

According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.

Corn says that his source told him the recorder shut off on its own right in the middle of Romney’s answer, and then was not turned on until Romney already was into a different topic. We have no way of verifying that source’s story, but we do know that there were various edited pieces of the tape circulating prior to Corn’s involvement, so it is just as possible that Corn’s source or someone else handling the video prior to Corn edited out part of the answer.

It is impossible for us to know if Romney said something which changed or put the remarks in context. Romney doesn’t remember the event except for what exists on audio/video. Maybe in the fullness of the answer, the answer was less “inelegant” than it appears. Maybe Romney put some of the context on it that we have heard in his interviews the past two days.

What difference does it make?

Think how the initial 24 hours of controversy might have played out differently had Corn made the disclosure up front. That part of the answer was missing from the tape would have provided a valuable context both to readers/listeners, and to the Romney campaign. That never happened because there was no disclosure by Corn that part of the tape was missing.

Go read the whole thing to fully appreciate how this is blowing up in their faces.UPDATE III: Corn's source supposedly told him he noticed his camera had stopped recording, so he started it up again. Yeah.....uh....without moving it? Uhmm........ok. Sure. From the 'Not Yet Europe: Let America Be America' blog: http://not-yet-europe.com/2012/09/19/romney-tape-gap-not-recording-error/

So to drag Obama's ass to a horrible 1 pt lead ABC/WaPo had to give Democrats a laughable +10pt advantage in their sample. Awesome.

Most of these polls are assuming/praying/hoping for/sacrificing to the gods that the voter turnout in 2012 matches that of 2008, when Democrats voted more than Republicans by +7 pts.

With Dem. voter enthusiasm way down, and Republican voter enthusiasm up, not to mention the 35%=35% deadlock from the 2010 mid-terms, where Republicans and Democrats turned out in equal numbers for a historic ass-kicking of Democratic incumbents, hoping for a +4 to +7 Democratic turnout in 2012 is a fantasy.

So that's what these polls are trying to sell: a fantasy. As I said back in early August after Pew Research put out poll with a +19 Democrat sample so they could crow Obama had a whopping 10 point lead on Romney:

They attempt to create public perception with these polls, but all they REALLY end up doing is fooling their own Lefty base. The simpletons out there will just look at the headlines and go "Oh hey, Obama's got this in the bag. 10 points up! Awesome!"

This is why the idiots in the Progressive base always walk around stunned after they lose an election, blubbering "B-b-but the POLLS!!!!???"

They fall for this Kabuki Theater all the time. This is how they can scream the election must have stolen because..................the polls!

Turns out the reason they had to hire local contractors to provide security is because Hillary Clinton decided to make a very, VERY small footprint in Libya. Which meant nixing Marines for ANY diplomatic station in Libya. And then in their insane Rules of Engagement (ROE), The State Dept. went on to stipulate that the locally hired contractors were not allowed to have any bullets in their guns. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/Colonel-Says-Hillary-Clinton-Made-Decision-to-Have-No-Marines-at-BenghaziRemember how the Left was crowing yesterday over that unsourced & disputed story that claimed Marines stationed in the Cairo embassy weren't allowed to have loaded weapons? Good luck debunking this one. The paper trail is extensive. And damning. No wonder the State Dept. clammed up and said it's not talking about Benghazi any more. UPDATE: Now that plenty of other embassies around the Middle East have had their security breached, the Obama administration is belatedly trying to beef up the security. And not having much luck in some places. They politely asked the gov't of Sudan if it would be OK for a platoon of Marines to enter the country to help guard our US embassy there. And the gov't of Sudan politely said no. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/us-protest-sudan-idUSBRE88E0FI20120915

UPDATE II: The Wall Street Journal also reports that local Libyan security hired by British firm to guard Benghazi consulate were in fact unarmed:

Mohammed Farraj, a soldier who was part of a four-member Libyan military unit permanently stationed at the facility. said he heard commotion on the dirt road outside the compound about 8:30 p.m. and was told by walkie-talkie of a group of armed, bearded protesters gathering.

There also were four private security guards, all Libyans, who weren't armed and worked inside the compound. Interviews with the Libyans indicated there also were four to eight American security guards around the compound when the attack started.

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

You are not “free” when police can come to your door after midnight and demand that you “come downtown and answer a few questions” over a film you’ve made. Voluntarily, of course. . . .

It’s the deputies who should be covering their faces out of shame, but the real shame is on the man at the top of the hierarchy.

Some nights I lie awake wondering how much tougher we'd have it if Rahm Emanuel had won that power struggle in the White House 3 years ago instead of Valerie Jarrett. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2012/09/15/new-york-times-sent-unpublished-columns-obama-administration-vettingRahm was the pragmatist. Jarrett is the rabid ideologist. We can thank her for much of the Obama admin.'s missteps and blunders. You do not cross her. Ever. And you certainly don't disagree with her views. Jarrett is a key reason why Obama is so out of touch and clueless about things because she actually makes sure the bubble he lives in never gets popped. We can only hope the bubble remains unpopped and they sail blithely on to Nov. 6.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Obama Really IS

Jimmy Carter 2.0

An old proverb says "If you live long enough, you will see history repeat itself." And right now, history is repeating itself before our eyes. In 1977 Jimmy Carter decided to withdraw support from the Shah of Iran, convinced if he let the radical Islamic militants in that country depose the Shah, whoever replaced him would be 'better'. We had the comical farce for several months of Carter trying to sell the Ayatollah Ruohallah Khomeini as a nice religious leader, a really great guy who would do much better than the Shah. What we ended up with was a hostage crisis that lasted over a year and 30+ years of Iran fomenting radicalism and terror wherever it can. So.........yeah. GOOD CALL THERE, JIMMY.

Y'all are welcome!

Starting in 2010 with the unrest in Egypt, Libya and now Syria, people strongly questioned the Obama strategy of withdrawing support - or even directly helping to topple - Middle East strong men under the confidently optimistic idea that whoever replaced them would be 'better'.

First thing new Egyptian President Morsi did on winning his election was call for the United States to immediately free The Blind Sheikh convicted of masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Hey, good start there. Couple more months when he's really feeling optimistic maybe Morsi will add Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to the list of terrorists the US should hand over. So now the Muslim Brotherhood is running Egypt, and Al Qaeda and other violent Islamic groups have designs on Libya. Fantastic.

Obama was supposed to have put all these fires out with that awesome Cairo speech in 2009 where he hit the 'reset' button with the Islamic world. As has become evident the past few days, he might have overestimated his effectiveness at changing the Islamic world's unrelenting hatred of the United States. After missing a chance to back a real democratic Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, Obama stupidly decided to topple two Middle Eastern leaders with no real intention of ensuring who replaced them. The Muslim Brotherhood isn't exactly a democratic organization. A study of it's history would tell you this. We have a patched-together weak democratic government of a sorts in Libya, but that's why Al Queda and other violent groups are moving in now - they sense a chance to establish a new base for jihad. If the idea was to promote democracy in the region, two key points that are necessary would be:1. Making sure new dictators worse than the guy you just helped get rid of don't win the 1st - and only real - election held and 2. guaranteeing the security of the new government until it can stand on it's own. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood easily won the 1st election held. Having established themselves, these radicals will never hand over power to those not as fervent in the faith as they are. Which, in their minds, is nobody.

We didn't even provide enough security in Libya for our diplomatic personnel.

What chance does the new Libyan government have?

In Libya, we didn't even provide security for our diplomatic personnel on the ground there, so one has to wonder how much the new weak Libyan government can depend on the US providing it's security as radical groups seek to topple and replace it. While Carter could make the excuse he had no idea what a growing threat radical Islam would turn out to be for the next 35 years when he helped set up the worlds first Islamic jihad Republic, Obama has no such excuse. After the rise of violent radical Islamism there is no possible justification for passively allowing other countries to fall under the sway of such radicals. 2-3 more Irans fomenting terror and jihad across the globe for the next couple of decades could end up being Obama's big legacy. Carter has spent 35+ years vigorously running from his legacy of a radicalized Iran. Obama very well could end up doing the same from Egypt and - if we fail in Libya - there also. And all the while this current crisis is going on, Obama's playing will-I-or-won't-I-make-time-to-see-Netanyahu? Pathetic. We're likely to be in a shooting war soon on Israel's side in the next year if they have to strike Iran over it's nuclear weapon's program and this clueless dick is playing to his anti-Israel base in a crisis build-up because getting re-elected is his #1 priority. Which is why with reports of other embassies coming under attack, Obama decided to jet off to Vegas for his regularly scheduled fundraiser. The optics of that were beyond horrible. Who is advising this President?

Hillary Clinton trying to comically sell the idea that Libyan's parading the body of our dead ambassador for the cameras were actually 'bravely' trying to rush him to the hospital will be lampooned for years. Desperate to avoid a rehash of Mogadishu, in which bodies of American servicemen were paraded through the streets, Hillary descended into comedy trying to spin it. Serious questions need to be asked as to why the diplomatic personnel at that consulate had no protection, why security was not increased on 9-11, and if there was indeed intelligence of a coming attack that was ignored. The media has had 3 days to ask such questions and thus far has refused to do so, instead focusing on Mitt Romney like he's the real problem or something. This election can't come soon enough. UPDATE: The White House has now gone beyond farce. Jay Carney insisted today that a single video posted on YouTube has caused all the rioting and protesting we've seen this past week in over 20 different countries. Like Obama had all the fires put out, worked his magic with that Cairo speech in 2009, and everything in the Middle East was just hunky-dory................and then some prick posted a YouTube video and ruined everything.Watch Jay Carney trying to sell this to the White House press corp: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/carney-global-protests-directed-at-offensive-video-not-u-s-policy-or-the-obama-administration/

Byron York has a column at The Washington Examiner on this desperate attempt by the White House to avoid admitting it's Middle East polices are now in shambles;

They are not victims of circumstances beyond their control here. They failed to anticipate anything happening on 9-11, didn't ensure the security of our embassy in Cairo or of the consulate in Benghazi, got caught flat-footed, and now it's blown up into a huge crisis. Obama & Co. spent 3 1/2 years creating a power vacuum in the Middle East. This was supposed to be the 'smart' thing to do, hitting that 'reset' button by drastically limiting American power in the region.

Obama's simplistic view that Islamic hatred of the West starts and ends with Gitmo, EIT's and Israel led him to think by ending EIT's, promising to close Gitmo and keeping Israel at arms length he was 'fixing' the things at the root of Islamic animosity to the United States.

From the way he's reacted to events this week, it's clear he hasn't learned a goddamn thing.

UPDATE II: The day after the State Department informs the media it's done talking about the attack just 4 days before on it's undefended consulate in Benghazi in which 4 Americans were killed, CNN breaks the news that Libyan officials had issued warnings to the US that the security situation was deteriorating 3 days before Ambassador Stevens and his coworkers were literally dragged to their deaths.

A Libyan man explains that the bloodstains on the column are from one the American staff members who grabbed the edge of the column while he was being dragged to his death, after an attack that killed four Americans on September 11th.

First, the State Departments demand to the media that they might as well stop asking why the security at the consulate was so, you know, non-existent, because they weren't going to answer any more questions about the attack at all:

The State Department told reporters Friday afternoon that it won’t answer any more questions about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans until the investigation into the incident is complete.

“I’m going to frustrate all of you, infinitely, by telling you that now that we have an open FBI investigation on the death of these four Americans, we are not going to be in a position to talk at all about what the U.S. government may or may not be learning about how any of this this happened — not who they were, not how it happened, not what happened to Ambassador Stevens, not any of it — until the Justice Department is ready to talk about the investigation that’s its got,” State Department spokeswoman Victorian Nuland told reporters late Friday afternoon.

“So I’m going to send to the FBI for those kinds of questions and they’re probably not going to talk to you about it,” she said.

As Ed Morrisey at Hot Air puts it:

They won’t answer any questions at all while the investigation continues? That seems awfully convenient, especially since State had the responsibility for securing that mission in Benghazi in the first place — and on the anniversary of 9/11, a time when one might expect some kind of attack attempt.

Benghazi, Libya (CNN) -- Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.

The State Dept. can come out and say they are done talking about this incident, but doesn't take any of the heat off of them. 4 Americans are dead, and if even basic security measures taken at most American embassies & consulates had been followed here, they wouldn't be. Someone has got to be held accountable.

Also, nobody sums up the bizarre stupidity & tragedy of this week quite like David Burge, aka @iowahawkblog. If you're not following him on twitter, you really should be.

About Me

A Conservative since 1986, I was moved to launch my blogging career on the death of Andrew Breitbart in March 2012. I have been on the internet since 1994, studying Liberal pathology and making PC internet bullies scream in frustration.

Help Support This Blog!

If you enjoy reading this blog and have learned anything useful or informative, please consider supporting my mission to be a citizen journalist and carrying on Andrew Breitbart's righteous indignation by donating whatever you can via PayPal! You can use any credit card too!